Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
Displays Input Devices Games Technology

Bomb Defuse Simulator 2013: a Head-Tracking Tech Demo 35

New submitter Johnny G. Mills writes "During a gamejam (an event to quickly develop and build an interesting game), two members of Sassybot Studio used a projector, Microsoft Kinect, and two moving boxes to create a simulator for defusing a bomb. They used me as a test subject, and thought Slashdot would enjoy this convergence of tech and gaming. 'The wires generated in Bomb Defuse Simulator 2013 are created procedurally to provide the player with a random challenge each time the game is played. ... The controls in the game are split up into physical input and Xbox controller input. With physical input the player moves around the bomb to see what is happening. This is literally done by walking around the real environment ... In our case we projected onto cardboard boxes to prove the concept. In theory this concept can be applied to larger and more unconventional objects. Doing so will challenge the game designer with utilizing the real space in order to create a game in virtual space.'"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bomb Defuse Simulator 2013: a Head-Tracking Tech Demo

Comments Filter:
  • by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2013 @08:32PM (#44814901) Homepage
    til he get arrested for teaching xbox players how to defuse a bomb. I mean that HAS to be worse than teaching someone how to beat a polygraph right??
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Beating a polygraph is a lie.
      Beating a bomb is life.

      (And you never know when you're going to be in a blockbuster movie; that's how the heroes learned to defuse, I suspect.)

  • by hedgemage ( 934558 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2013 @08:39PM (#44814953)
  • by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Tuesday September 10, 2013 @08:48PM (#44815017)

    That is soooo yesterday and might get you shot if you carry it around! []

    Modern bombs use wireless tech and there is nothing to cut! Instead you have to figure out how to exactly fold and insert a piece of tin-foil.

    • Modern bombs use wireless tech and there is nothing to cut!

      I've never heard of wireless bomb detonators. You do realize that there is some substantial energy to be delivered into the detonator? It's not just a signal, the wires form a power circuit.

      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        And the second one with a broken satire-detector.

        • Given how many people harbor incredible misconceptions about all things explosive, there's bound to be a lot of false positives and negatives in that area. ;-)
          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Well, yes. I though it was completely obvious how stupid it would be to attach a timer wireless to a detonator (because that means the detonator will be several orders of magnitude more complex than the plain timer), but apparently many people without even the slightest clue of how these things work make themselves even more clueless because they think they have a clue. Dunning-Kruger effect at work. Explains a lot.

      • It is possible to make a totally wireless chemical detonator by using something like, for example, gelatin-coated sodium metal in hydrogen peroxide (+ an appropriately heat-sensitive primary explosive), or possibly some other kind of coated metal + picric acid. I don't think it's recommended except in circumstances where it would be impossible to use a wired detonator --- the exact detonation time would be quite unpredictable.

  • Rocky's Boots in virtual space...
  • It's always the red wire.

  • You're a moron. Any freshman can design a detonation system and perform the chemistry to null your system. Folks in glass empires ought not fly drones. Do the math.
  • There's a bomb on a bus. Once the bus goes 50 miles an hour, the bomb is armed. If it drops below 50, it blows up. What do you do? What do you do?

  • Is it realistic enough to prepare us against the muzzie threat?
  • Which is to say, is there a "LiteBrite" mode?

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam